THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

155 taxmann.com 135 [Guj] had considered the entire issue in detail and judgements rendered by different High Courts, Special Bench of ITAT and held as follows: 14 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT “… 4.3 So far as question (D) is concerned, the coordinate bench has answered them as follows

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

155 taxmann.com 135 [Guj] had considered the entire issue in detail and judgements rendered by different High Courts, Special Bench of ITAT and held as follows: 14 I.T.A No. 198 & 199/Ahd/2023 & Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No Suzlon Engergy Ltd. vs. DCIT “… 4.3 So far as question (D) is concerned, the coordinate bench has answered them as follows

ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

155 ITR 711 as also the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of United Phosphours Ltd. vs. JCIT (2001) 73 TTJ 404 (Ahd), the AO reduced the claim for depreciation on the basis of his own findings in the AY 2001-02. 3. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, following his own decision

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. TORRENT POWER LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

section 80-IA of the Act. 64.1 However, the AO was of the view that no benefit of bad debts recovery can be granted by allowing deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that the amount of bad debt was recognized by the assessee when its unit was not eligible for deduction under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

155 taxmann.com 135, where it was held that the disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. The Ld.AR also argued that when the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Ld.CIT(A) should not have restored the matter back to AO. The Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 18. Upon careful consideration

ORIENTAL ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

155 taxmann.com 135, where it was held that the disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. The Ld.AR also argued that when the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Ld.CIT(A) should not have restored the matter back to AO. The Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 18. Upon careful consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. ORIENTAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, PCC NOTIFIED AREA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

155 taxmann.com 135, where it was held that the disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. The Ld.AR also argued that when the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Ld.CIT(A) should not have restored the matter back to AO. The Ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 18. Upon careful consideration

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ADANI ENTERPRISE LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

disallowance of Rs.68,00,471/-. (6) The CIT(A)has erred in law and in facts in deleting he addition of Rs.I,72,59,614/- made on account of unutilized CENVAT credits. (7) The CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in adjustment of Rs. 1,15, I5,902/- u/s 1 I5JB of the Act on account

TML INDUSTRIES LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(4), NOW THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

155 taxmann.com 135 (Guj) the Hon’ble High Court held that where the assessee had mixed funds, then the provisions of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules do not get A.Y. 2014-15 Page 5 of 8 attracted atomically. In the case of Gujarat State Energy Generation Limited, 117 taxmann.com 58 (Ahmedabad

ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt. Sr.No.

disallowing legitimate expenditure incurred by the appellant-company and fully covered under the provisions of section 35-D of the I.T Act. 4. The appellant leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of appeal. 2.1 The assessee has modified ground no.1D which is detailed as under

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

155 ITR 711 held that the provisions (deeming) or fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. 10.8 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Builders (P) Ltd. reported in 281 ITR 210 has also taken the same view. On perusal of the above judgments, it emerges that the deeming

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance of Rs.7,03,990/- in its computation of total income. 16. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed both the additions and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 17. Aggrieved against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us raising

URMIN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

disallowance of Rs.7,03,990/- in its computation of total income. 16. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed both the additions and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 17. Aggrieved against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us raising

TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

19,72,500/- 16-11-2011 18-05-2012 55.1 The TPO found that as per the provision of FEMA 1999 and RBI master circular No. 15/2014-15 dated 01-07-2014, the process of allotment of shares/equity instrument shall be completed within 180 days from the date of payment of money whereas in the case of the assessee the shares